As social networks proliferate and more investment is made into them (and companies deploy their own networks trying to capitalize on the explosion in internet participation), I keep thinking about the people who aren’t all that social, not inherently “connectors” or are folks not much interested in virtually connecting.

I always thought not being social was, well, being antisocial. The weirdos who smell bad and can’t be trusted around small animals or children. The nerds with whom I connected who would prefer alone-time with code instead of hanging around with me after work. The meditators whom I always seem to stumble upon when hiking in the woods.

Then I became enlightened.

Some time ago I was in an executive workshop where my “motive profile” was taken. This profile was based on the work of the late professor David McClelland, in which he proposed that an individual’s specific needs are acquired over time and are shaped by one’s early life experiences. Most of these needs can be classified as either achievement, affiliation, or power (or what McClelland apparently wished he’d called that last one: influence due to “power’s” often miscontrued meaning).

I learned that I had a “power V” with 91% achievement, 28% affiliation and 74% power which is an entrepreneur’s profile (large organization CEO’s typically score the same but are in the upper 80th or 90th percentile in power).

When these results were handed to me by the workshop leader, I was stunned since anyone who knows me would laugh at the notion I’m low on affiliation and actually not a social animal. I pulled our workshop leader aside immediately, “28% in affiliation!?! But I *like* people, can talk to a rock and have always been perceived as an extroverted good host at parties and a fun coach and mentor,” I protested. Our workshop leader calmly explained to me (and the group) that what our scoring meant was the measure of what each of us needed to be whole and satisfied each-n-every day. Thus I had an innate drive to achieve, to influence others, but mostly didn’t need to be around or connect with people at all in order to meet my core needs. Affiliation with others wasn’t (and isn’t) a motivator for me.

This made perfect sense as it sunk in…though I find my best ideas and energy come from being around others and brainstorming but, I must admit, I do love solitude and need daily time by myself to feel right. Learning this about myself was (and still is) incredibly instructive, but when I think about my need to connect with others through social media and networks I have to chuckle: as a guy consulting in the social media space, ironically I don’t care all that much and don’t have a lot of energy for social networks, LinkedIn or networking in general.

So what’s the lesson in all of this for you?

[Read more...]